What happens if a no confidence motion is passed

It might be thought that since there must always be someone who is best placed after the PM, the PM always has a duty to resign if a VoNC is lost. This is mistaken. The Shadow Chancellor appears to think it would be appropriate to send Corbyn to the Palace in a taxi. He is wrong about that.

This view presupposes, mistakenly, that Corbyn is clearly the best placed candidate after a VoNC. He is not, or at least, not necessarily. That total is currently MPs. The best placed candidate to replace the incumbent PM is always drawn from the largest party of the largest coalition or grouping of MPs. Of course, if the PM does not resign as leader of his party, then there is no vacancy. If necessary, this could perhaps be done by an Address or, as a last resort, via an Early Day Motion.

This is because there is someone else who is clearly best placed to command the confidence of the Commons. This post argues that the leader of the largest party, coalition or grouping must always be called by the Queen even if they do not command an overall majority. She would rightly have no discretion in this situation.

Incidentally, it is mistaken to think that the ex-PM advises or recommends to the Queen who should be the new PM. There is no need — and at the moment of appointment the ex-PM, by definition, has no standing to do so.

Some argue that if an MP such as, say, Margaret Beckett other than Corbyn were to demonstrate that they have the most support from MPs, the Queen might still have discretion to refuse to appoint her unless she can show that she can form a government with a realistic prospect of running the country for a reasonable period of time. This would be an application of what are known as the Lascelles principles. But applying the Lascelles principles would be mistaken, not least because it would mean the Queen playing an active role and exercising personal discretion in a highly contentious political situation.

This is no longer appropriate since the Elizabethan Codicil. The Lascelles principles are out of date. The test suggested in this post is clear, simple and easily applied. It is whether there is someone clearly best placed to command the confidence of the Commons in place of the incumbent PM — and that is simply a question of numbers.

If Corbyn or any other MP cannot commandeer more support than the largest party or grouping, then there is no duty on the PM to resign, and no duty imposed on the Queen, because it is not clear who is best placed.

In those circumstances, the incumbent PM has a duty to take all steps to press for a dissolution from the Commons until and unless he can regain the confidence of the House although the idea of regaining the confidence of the Commons is itself somewhat constitutionally questionable as a matter of history.

The first is to bring forward a motion under the s 2 1 FtPA procedure. The second is to wait until the statutory day period runs out. The total number of MPs is That leaves MPs. In theory, if the opposition parties could identify a single MP behind whom to rally, they could replace the PM.

This would be mistaken. It would also, incidentally, determine which side of the House MPs would have to sit if there was a change in PM. This means that in order for an alternative PM to gain sufficient support to create a duty on the incumbent PM to resign, there must be MPs who support that alternative candidate in the current scenario.

This may possibly include some former Tory MPs who have either resigned the whip or had it removed. The alternative candidate may or may not be Corbyn. Currently, he has the support of Labour MPs who take the Labour whip. That makes MPs. There are also 18 Lib Dem MPs. If Corbyn, or anyone else, could commandeer the support of MPs, I suggest that he or she would then be clearly numerically best placed to command the confidence of the House and the PM would have a duty to resign, or be dismissed by the Queen.

I emphasise that this claim is not universally agreed amongst experts. There is a respectable alternative argument that unless an alternative PM can command an overall majority, then the PM does not have a duty to resign and the Queen does not have a duty to dismiss him. I think this would mistakenly overlook the long history of minority governments in this country, and would permit a zombie government wrongly to cling on to power.

To be clear, then, the proposals here are offered as potentially providing a clear set of non-discretionary rules that could determine numerous, if not all, of the potentially contested scenarios that I can currently envisage — but these rules are, and would be, contested by others.

The numerical example above illustrates that a grouping or party may have sufficient support to mean that the incumbent has a duty to resign without the new PM having sufficient numbers for an overall majority.

This happened in when David Cameron won seats and was appointed following the resignation of Gordon Brown, who had It is entirely possible that a new PM could be appointed, lose or not even bring a Vote of Confidence, set the election date, and remain as PM for the duration of the election period.

There is some doubt whether this now only applies to a statutory VoNC. If the government takes a restrictive view of the convention, it may mean that procedural machinations by other MPs, such as trying to suspend Standing Order No. On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that the government would welcome a VoNC in order to bring about a general election and might even make time for such a vote brought by someone other than Corbyn.

If a non-statutory VoNC were successful, the principles set out above would be basically the same. The only real difference would be that a no-confidenced PM would have a duty actively to bring a motion under s 2 3 FtPA seeking a two-thirds majority for a dissolution.

This would be because he would not be able simply to wait 14 days, and he could not just continue as PM. Indeed, the active duty to seek a general election via a two-thirds majority precisely describes the current situation where the PM has sought an election twice, but has been rebuffed on each occasion.

It is arguable that these two attempts to bring about an election are a function of the fact that the Benn Act was made an issue of confidence by the government. The government arguably therefore has a duty to continue to press the House for a general election if it does not wish to resign. This impasse has been caused by the FtPA because the two thirds majority requirement creates the possibility of the loss of confidence of the HoC without an inevitable dissolution and election and without there being someone else clearly best placed to command confidence.

This post has sought to set out a route map in the event that a VoNC is successfully brought in the near future. There is also a flowchart available above which some may find more useful. If no candidate succeeded, an election would almost inevitably follow. This post was updated on 30 September It represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor LSE. The author would like to thank Gavin Phillipson, Richard Ekins and Mark Elliott for their helpful comments on previous drafts.

Parliament will then dissolve 25 working days before polling day. When this happens, Parliament no longer sits and MPs stop being MPs while they campaign for re-election. If the government loses a confidence vote, the situation is similar to that of an election in which no one party wins a majority.

That means that the existing prime minister should only resign if it's clear someone else can command the support of the House of Commons.

However, if an alternative government is ready to take over, convention suggests that the PM should stand down. Yet there is nothing clearly stated in law that says the prime minister must do so. Failing to step down would risk bringing the Queen into the Brexit dispute, as the monarch appoints PMs and, in theory, can dismiss one who behaves unconstitutionally.

Jeremy Corbyn says Labour wants to introduce a no confidence motion. But he says it will only do this once the threat of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October has been removed. However, the government accuses Labour of running scared. It says Labour should immediately bring a vote of confidence to end the Brexit stalemate.

If a no confidence vote were to pass, Jeremy Corbyn has urged MPs from all parties to install him as prime minister. Mr Corbyn says he would then immediately extend the Brexit deadline and ask Parliament to call an early election. Ms Swinson suggests that former Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke or former Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman should head a temporary government instead.

It's very rare for a government to lose a no confidence motion. Before , prime ministers could call a general election whenever they wanted to. That meant they could evade a possible no confidence vote by calling an election instead.

There's only been one occasion since World War Two when the government lost a no-confidence vote. That was in , when the Labour minority government fell and was replaced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives at the general election which followed. What are the PM's remaining election options?

What would change with a no-deal Brexit? Image source, Getty Images. What is a no confidence vote? What are the PM's early election options? No-deal Brexit: What you need to know.